The State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by resolution 1991/42
of the Commission on Human Rights. The mandate of the Working Group was clarified
and extended by resolution 1997/50 and reconfirmed by resolution 2000/36. Acting
in accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group forwarded to the Government
the above-mentioned communication.

2. The Working Group conveys its appreciation to the Government for having forwarded
the requisite information in good time.

3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(i) When it manifestly cannot be justified on any legal basis (such as continued
detention after the sentence has been served or despite an applicable amnesty
act)
(category I);
(ii) When the deprivation of liberty is the result of a judgement or sentence
for the exercise of the rights and freedoms proclaimed in articles 7, 13, 14,
18 19, 20
and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also, in respect of
States parties, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (category II);
(iii) When the complete or partial non-observance of the relevant international
standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned relating
to the right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to confer on the deprivation
of liberty, of
whatever kind, an arbitrary character (category III).

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group welcomes the cooperation
of the Government. The Working Group transmitted the Government’s reply
to the source and received the latter’s comments. The Working Group believes
that it is in a position to render an opinion on the facts and circumstances
of the cases, in the light of the allegations made, the response of the Government
thereto, and the source’s comments.

5. The Working Group received a communication concerning 12 police officers,
who allegedly rebelled against the Government, as a result of which, according
to the source, they were placed in detention without a warrant. It is reported
that 11 of them are still detained in the prison of Gabode, in conditions which
are in conformity neither with the standards of domestic law nor with those
of international human rights. They have all been charged with treasonable complicity,
jeopardizing State security, rebellion, transporting weapons of war and incitement
to arm. According to the source, their arrest was due to the fact that they
belonged to a movement of rebellion led by General Yacin Yabeh Galab, Chief
of Police, against the Head of State.

6. By initiating a trial of strength, which lasted several hours - still according
to the source - without any shots being fired by the rebels, General Yacin Yabeh
Galab hoped to oblige the Head of State to negotiate. The uprising was severely
repressed. It was in that situation that, on 10 December 2000, General Galab
and 12 police officers under his orders were arrested and taken three days later
to the prison of Gabode.

7. According to the source, the above arrests and related house searches were
carried out without warrants, according to discriminatory tribal criteria. The
individuals, who were selected from a group of mutineers, all belonged to the
family or clan of General Yacin Yabeh Galab, whence the Government’s hostility
towards them. Before they had been informed of the charges brought against them,
the detainees were allowed no visits, nor any medical or legal assistance.
They are being held at the prison of Gabode in extremely poor conditions, which
clearly jeopardize their physical and mental integrity.

8. Eleven detainees remained in prison for 16 months without judgement, which
is clearly more than may be termed a reasonable time. The twelfth (Colonel God)
was kept in detention even though his case had been dismissed by the country’s
Supreme Court. Most of the accused were refused pre-trial release despite applying
for it.

9. According to the source’s information, the trial should be heard by
the Criminal Court of the Djibouti Tribunal. The detainees fear that their trial
is bound to be perfunctory and conducted in violation of international norms.

10. In its detailed reply, the Government recalls that, contrary to the source’s
allegations, in Gabode prison the detainees were allowed unrestricted visits
by their officially appointed counsel and their families, a fact which may be
confirmed by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross,
who were in contact with the accused from the start of the proceedings.

11. The accused receive all the medical care they need at any time from a team
of doctors and nurses. It was in fact by medical order of one of these doctors
that Mr. Yacin Yabeh Galab was provisionally released for humanitarian reasons
after a few months in detention. Mr. Bouh Ahmed Omar’s case was dismissed
by certified submission of the Public Prosecutor, which makes the decision final.

12. On the other hand, while Mohammed Abdillahi God’s case, like that
of Fathi Mohammed Guelleh, was initially dismissed by the investigating judge,
the submission was not certified by the Public Prosecutor, who immediately appealed.
The appeal suspended the dismissal of the case pending a ruling by the Court
of Appeal, which, endorsing the submissions of the Public Prosecutor, overturned
the dismissal order in favour of Mohammed Abdillahi God and Fathi Mohamed Guelleh
(who had meanwhile been provisionally released) and referred all the accused
before the Criminal Court, except Bouh Ahmed Omar, whose case was definitively
filed.

13. Following that decision, which is binding on both the investigating judge
and the prosecution, the accused did not attempt to lodge any further appeal,
except for Mohammed Abdillahi God and Fathi Mohammed Guelleh, who requested
a judicial review of their case.

14. As soon as the referral decision concerning the other 13 accused became
final, the Public Prosecutor brought their case before the Criminal Court for
trial.

15. At the end of the trial, which - according to the Government - was held
completely openly in the presence of all the accused’s lawyers, their
families and many national and foreign observers, the court rendered its verdict
after a long deliberation. Only one of the accused was acquitted, namely Abdonnasser
Awaleh Cheik. The main person accused, Mr. Yacin Yabeh Galab, was sentenced
to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment, while Mr. Hussein Gouldon Boulaleh,
Mr. Ahmed Aden Faden and Mr. Daher Assan Ahmed were sentenced to 10 years’
rigorous imprisonment each. The other accused were sentenced to 3, 4 or 6 years’
rigorous
imprisonment, after being found guilty of the charges brought against them,
in addition to incurring civil penalties, to which they were jointly sentenced.

16. It may be noted that once again none of the accused considered it worth
appealing against the decision of the Criminal Court within the period allowed,
except for two, whose cases may be examined and judged by the Criminal Court
at its next session in the last quarter of 2002, according to the Government.

17. It appears from the above that the judicial proceedings brought against
those responsible for the events of 7 December 2000 appear to have been conducted
in conformity with domestic and international human rights law, in view, in
particular, of the presence of lawyers and observers at the trial and the possibility
of lodging appeals, in accordance with the principles governing the protection
of all persons subject to any form of detention or imprisonment and without
contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

18. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of the persons referred to above may be regarded
as
being in conformity with domestic legislation, which itself does not contravene
the relevant international norms.

19. The Working Group is grateful to the Government for supplying the necessary
information in good time, and requests it to take appropriate steps to become
a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.